Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more QName madness
 Henry Thompson writes: >>Surely that's not the point -- the point for interop is simply that >>any given application knows the names of the schemes it implements. >>Reasonable guarantees of uniqueness of scheme names, such as that >>provided by using URIs via QNames, are all that's required to prevent >>mistakes here. I don't see the addition of enormous verbosity through extra namespace declarations providing those applications with any additional guarantee of uniqueness. If anything, it seems likely to decrease reliable identification of schemes as developers make mistakes in all that redundant information. >> No-one _ever_ claimed that using QNames would mean that a >> general-purpose XPointer processor would be able to look up the >> scheme name and find some operationalisable description of scheme >> semantics. So what exactly does using QNames buy us? What are the odds of conflicting XPointer scheme names anyway? So far I've created a few schemes, the XLink WG has created a few, and the SVG WG has created one that starts off with "svg". This proposal appears to be 100% cost and 0% benefit. Perhaps the only amusing part of it is that the W3C reserves itself the right not to have to use namespaces for its schemes. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
